Interior Lumber Co. v. Perkins
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. The questions presented by this appeal are of the validity and infringement of claims 4, 5, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 43, and 45 of letters patent of the United States, No. 380,346, granted on April 3, 1888, to Willis J. Perkins, for improvements in shingle-sawing machines.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. The questions presented by this appeal are of the validity and infringement of claims 4, 5, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 43, and 45 of letters patent of the United States, No. 380,346, granted on April 3, 1888, to Willis J. Perkins, for improvements in shingle-sawing machines. Claims 4, 5, and 45, which are for dogging devices, read as follows: “(4) .The combination, with the rotating carriage of a shingle-sawing machine, of a dog near the periphery of said carriage, a bent arm pivotally…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, Circuit Judge
Following the testimony of the expert, Bates, the prior' art in dogging devices may be summarized as follows: The Freeman patent of 1858 has a rotating carriage, with a dog near the periphery, which is forced inward to hold the bolt, and an arm, pivoted to the dog and to the frame of the carriage, which serves to operate the dog. A cam acts upon the arm, and forces the dog inward, causing it to bite the bolt, and another cam, acting upon an extension of the arm, throws the arm and dog outward to release the bolt. The Freeman patent of 1859 has a rotary carriage, a dog near the periphery, an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pickering v. McCulloughSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Thompson v. BoisselierSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Hill v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Burt v. EvorySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Florsheim v. SchillingSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Western Willite Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
- Kelly v. ClowCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1898
- Lamson Consol. Stoke Service Co. v. HillmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1903
- Wisconsin Compressed Air House Cleaning Co. v. American Compressed Air Cleaning Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1903
- Greist Mfg. Co. v. ParsonsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.